LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Greens Work with Grassroots

We all know that the Democratic party is moving to the right. Is
the solution to remain loyal to the Democrats, or to create an
alternative party that can challenge them from the outside? Patrisia
Gonzales and Roberto Rodriguez' column ["Black Eye for Green
Party," 10/99 PP], and the statement made [in that
column] by the National Monument Protection Coalition regarding
the Green Party, show that this debate is alive and well among
progressives.

The Greens feel that the loyalist strategy has been tried, and has
failed. Our friends in the Democratic party have seen their
candidates lose primaries and their leaders charge to the right.
Clinton and Gore have passed versions of NAFTA and Welfare Reform
identical to the Republicans'. In New Mexico, the Democratic
leadership has propped up crony monopolies in energy and
telecommunications.

Much of the Coalition's anger at the Greens stems from the refusal
of Bob Anderson, our Congressional candidate in the first district,
to drop out after the Democrat, Phil Maloof, agreed to oppose the
road through the Petroglyphs. What no one's saying is that Maloof
supported this road 100% as a state legislator, and Anderson and the
Greens helped the Coalition years before Maloof changed his mind.
Everyone involved is happy to admit, privately, that Maloof would
never have flip-flopped if there hadn't been a Green in the race --
but to say so publicly would be embarrassing to the Democrat the
Coalition endorsed.

American history shows that third parties are essential to
revitalizing the political system. This country's voting system makes
voters face hard choices, and the question of whether to support
third parties is not a simple one. By working on reforms like Instant
Runoff Voting -- where a voter could vote Green first and Democrat
second, and have their vote transferred to the Democrat if the Green
doesn't have enough votes to win -- we hope to make these choices
easier.

But in the meantime, we intend to keep working at the grassroots.
In the past seven years, the New Mexico Greens have helped Somos un
Pueblo Unido, a local immigrants' rights group, to pass a policy
barring Santa Fe city police and staff from demanding proof of
citizenship. We have lobbied for property tax relief for long-term
Hispanic families. We have turned people out to rallies for Local
1199 on health care and labor issues, and helped pass a strong
collective bargaining ordinance. We have helped keep bus systems from
being cut. Our candidates for Congress, Carol Miller and Bob
Anderson, have run on issues like universal health care and social
security, and gained between 11% and 17% at the polls. At the local
level, we have elected four people to office, including two City
Councilors, a school board member, and a Municipal Judge -- Fran
Gallegos -- who has been a leader in establishing alternative
sentencing and bilingual programs for the court.

We are not as diverse as we need to be, and there is no question
that we must do better. But we are working on the right issues, and
we have the right platform. In time, we hope that our work on social
justice and economic issues will earn us the kind of membership we
need, and this is beginning to happen.

The Democrats are no longer serving the needs of progressives,
people of color, or low-income people. New Mexico, and the United
States, needs an alternative. The Greens have strengths and
weaknesses, and we hope to be part of the solution. We intend to work
with the Coalition and our other allies to build a third party that
can help create real political change.

CRIS MOORE,
Green Party member
City Councilor, District 2
Santa Fe, N.M.

Corporate Criminality is a Farce

Consider a flawed concept which makes dupes of us: that a business
criminal activity can be performed somehow without the existence of a
PERSON in an organization called a "corporation." That this legal
fiction is somehow created into a real, responsible "PERSON".

By definition a PERSON is an individual entity, a human being,
usually, with intellect and free will. He/she will have an
individual's name. An 'activity' is not a person.

To pretend otherwise is illogical, and changes reality into
play-acting, and in this case, a tragic farce.

Please name the real person's name, who made the basic criminal
decision, by virtue of his/her willful choice, in stating or
otherwise communicating that he chose this criminal act to be done.
The major or controlling stockholder, or fronting director,
basically.

To talk about "corporate persons" is the same as talking about
actors by their character names. Children do this when gossiping
about soap-opera characters, as though they were real persons.

Are we not able to name the individual person or persons who were
responsible actors ownership-wise, director-wise, or at the very
least administrator-wise, criminally, when they acted in the employ
of this legal entity "corporation"?

Just because law-makers and lawyers and judges choose to play-act
about real, responsible crimes, does not mean that we have to honor
that lugubrious farce. Does it?

TERRENCE O'NEILL
Carlyle, Ill

Farm Medicine

The farm crisis is finally beginning to get media attention, but
the solutions that are being offered are too little and too late. The
Congress and the State Governments are locking the barn door after
the horse has been stolen. After the ranks of the farmer have been
reduced from 6.5 million in 1930 to less than 2 million today, the
politicians are finally taking notice of the dimensions of the
disaster.

The aid that they offer, however, is inadequate and unsuitable for
the size and scope of the disaster that has wrecked the farm economy.
A solution more commensurate with the magnitude and the nature of the
disease would be a forgiveness of the farm debt. The farm debt is
currently pegged at about $172 billion nationwide. At a 10 per cent
interest rate this amounts of $17.2 billion each year in interest
charges alone. Some economists indicate that net farm income for 1999
may be as low as $40 billion. This means that the interest bill paid
by farmers of $17.2 billion will be equal to 42 per cent of net farm
income.

This interest bill is too big a burden for our farmers to bear.
They will never to able to repay the $172 billion debt plus the $17.2
billion per year in interest payments. Therefore, the farm debt
should be forgiven. Farmers are suffering from the global economy,
low commodity prices, high debt load and natural disasters. Their
ranks are being decimated, yet nobody even asks that their debts be
forgiven.

The last time I heard, the farmers are the ones who produce the
food and fiber for the nation. Bankers do not produce food and fiber.
Bankers do not suffer from heavy debt load, low commodity prices or
natural disaster. Neither is the prosperity of the banking class
being reduced. The banks are doing fine, thank you. So why cannot the
banks and the government forgive the farm debt and help our farmers
in their time of trial?

The answer to this question speaks volumes as to which class
controls our government and our economy. The forgiveness of the farm
debt would help the farmers and hurt bankers and creditors. The
bankers and the creditors must always remain whole, as the lawyers
are fond of saying. The banks and the creditors cannot ever lose a
penny interest or a penny of principal. Yet the farmers are losing
members from their class, their land, and their livelihoods. Farmers,
though, are not permitted to receive any real financial relief, like
the forgiveness of the farm debt because farmers do not control the
economy and the government. The bankers and the creditors are firmly
in control.

Therefore, farmers will continue to be sacrificed, their debts
will not be forgiven, more and more capital will come out to the
farms, farms will balloon in size, and the creditors and the bankers
will then be in charge of food and fiber production in our great
country. Does anyone seriously think that bankers can perform the
farmerís function? Will the banker class be able to feed our
people? I, myself, would not bet too much money on the success of the
banker-farmer.